Bombay High Court Upholds Interim Injunction in Patent Infringement Suit — Appellant's Product Falls Within Scope of Respondent's Patent Claims. Court finds that the appellant's product, a fire protection system for electrical transformers, infringes the respondent's patent IN 202302, and the challenge to the patent's validity is not prima facie tenable.

A) Patent Law - Infringement - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The court considered whether the appellant's product fell within the scope of the respondent's patent claims and whether the respondent made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction. The court held that the appellant's product, which uses a pressure relief valve and a nitrogen cylinder to extinguish fires in electrical transformers, infringes the respondent's patent claims 1 to 6. The court found that the respondent's patent is a product patent and not a process patent, and the appellant's product uses the same inventive concept. (Paras 1-10)

B) Patent Law - Validity - Challenge to Patent - Prima Facie Tenability - The court examined whether the appellant's challenge to the validity of the respondent's patent on grounds of prior art and obviousness was prima facie tenable. The court held that the prior art documents cited by the appellant did not disclose all the essential features of the claimed invention, and the challenge was not prima facie tenable. The court noted that the patent had been granted after examination and had been in force for over 20 years. (Paras 11-20)

C) Patent Law - Construction of Claims - Product-by-Process Claim - The court interpreted the respondent's patent claims and held that they are product claims, not process claims. The court stated that even if a claim includes a process step, it can still be a product claim if the product is defined by its method of manufacture. The court found that the claims in question define a product (a system for preventing, protecting and/or detecting explosion and/or fire of electrical transformers) and not a process. (Paras 21-25)

D) Patent Law - Interim Injunction - Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Loss - The court considered the balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The court held that the balance of convenience was in favor of the respondent, as the appellant had only recently started manufacturing the impugned product and the respondent had been using the patented invention for many years. The court also held that the respondent would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction was not granted, as the appellant's product would compete directly with the respondent's product. (Paras 26-30)

Whether the appellant's product infringes the respondent's patent IN 202302, and whether the respondent is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the appellant from manufacturing and selling the impugned product.

• Patent infringement
• interim injunction
• prima facie case
• balance of convenience
• irreparable loss
• validity of patent
• construction of patent claims
• product-by-process claim
• prior art
• anticipation
• obviousness
• Section 104A of Patents Act
• 1970